戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。

今後説明を表示しない

[OK]

コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 n is useful in overcoming common barriers to follow-up care.
2         This information is crucial to guide follow-up care.
3  visited dermatologists in their offices for follow-up care.
4 ures need a structured surveillance plan for follow-up care.
5 ted by nephrectomy develop metastasis during follow-up care.
6  cancers completed a mailed survey on cancer follow-up care.
7 ms, and health promotion, is vital to cancer follow-up care.
8 are through delay in intervention or loss of follow-up care.
9 oung male survivors are important aspects of follow-up care.
10 rsement should not be a barrier in providing follow-up care.
11 e similar to the reimbursement for recipient follow-up care.
12 rvivors' perceptions of the quality of their follow-up care.
13  and innovative approaches for transition of follow-up care.
14 ement to the transplant center for providing follow-up care.
15 s to improve the coordination and quality of follow-up care.
16 ntensive inpatient management and subsequent follow-up care.
17 summaries more consistently available during follow-up care.
18 implementation of future models of long-term follow-up care.
19 icians, as well as oncology specialists, for follow-up care.
20 able conditions for which survivors may seek follow-up care.
21 this underuse was not explained by access to follow-up care.
22 osis grade from 5 to 3) during nine years of follow-up care.
23 er variation was explained by differences in follow-up care.
24 .2 percent for screening to 58.5 percent for follow-up care.
25 ty to seek and receive appropriate long-term follow-up care.
26 ical treatment with a median of 83 months of follow-up care.
27 ation, emergency department utilization, and follow-up care 30 days after discharge; length of inpati
28 vors should see for cancer-related and other follow-up care (32%); fewer still also provided a writte
29 f HIV-positive users already had a source of follow-up care, 65% accepted referrals, and 12% had test
30                                   Mobile app follow-up care affects neither complication rates nor pa
31                The median time to subsequent follow-up care after recommendation was 14 days for AI a
32 tal health reason were documented to receive follow-up care although less than 10% of all service mem
33 comfortable with both PCPs and NPs providing follow-up care, although they indicate a preference for
34 ls ("Health Links") was developed to enhance follow-up care and broaden the application of the guidel
35 frequently noted in primary care (inadequate follow-up care and high rates of inadequate antidepressa
36 state re-biopsy is not necessary as standard follow-up care and that the absence of a rising PSA leve
37 reatable conditions for which survivors seek follow-up care and underscores the need for a multidisci
38 ealth providers, facilitation of appropriate follow-up care, and as-needed outreach and crisis interv
39 is discussed in the context of LD education, follow-up care, and future research on donation benefits
40 %; Germany) to 129 (95%; Italy) received any follow-up care, and one (10%; Nigeria) to 113 (42%; Fran
41 anges are required to adapt to the extensive follow-up care associated with some of these new treatme
42       MOs and PCPs perceive different cancer follow-up care barriers/concerns to be problematic.
43            Many centers recommend that donor follow-up care be provided by primary care physicians, b
44                                Comprehensive follow-up care by experienced caregivers can be highly e
45                Asian survivors report poorer follow-up care communication and care quality.
46 ion should be taken into account when making follow-up care decisions.
47                         To determine whether follow-up care delivered via a mobile app can be used to
48 ase in reports of inability to afford needed follow-up care (difference-in-differences estimate, -3.4
49 reatment initiation, symptom monitoring, and follow-up care documented within 3 months of initial sym
50 s of accepted donors+donor hepatectomy+donor follow-up care for 1 year+pretransplant recipient care [
51 medication did not have any documentation of follow-up care for 3 months (n = 356).
52                                 We described follow-up care for breast cancer survivors, examined how
53 cords were queried for sex, age, method, and follow-up care for index attempt survivors.
54 ndents both operate on and provide long-term follow-up care for lung cancer patients.
55 guidelines are needed to optimize and tailor follow-up care for older patients.
56 ic attributes that may influence therapy and follow-up care for these patients.
57 higher convenience scores than the in-person follow-up care group (incidence rate ratio, 1.39; 95% CI
58 s, vs 1.64 in-person visits in the in-person follow-up care group, for a difference of 0.40 times few
59 pp group, and 33 (51%) were in the in-person follow-up care group.
60 P = .005) than did patients in the in-person follow-up care group.
61                                Historically, follow-up care has left some patients with insufficient
62 ng standardized protocols and incentives for follow-up care, has yielded valuable information but has
63                  Several models of long-term follow-up care have been developed to address this need.
64 glaucoma and other eye disease detection and follow-up care in high-risk populations in the United St
65 raft nephropathy (CAN) in patients receiving follow-up care in our unit.
66 ades underscores the importance of long-term follow-up care in patients treated for Hodgkin's disease
67 visits compared with conventional, in-person follow-up care in the first 30 days following ambulatory
68 hite) survivors who had seen a physician for follow-up care in the past 2 years (n = 1,196) composed
69 ounding provision of cancer survivorship and follow-up care in the USA and discuss potential solution
70                                              Follow-up care includes assessment of side effects from
71  by comprehensively addressing components of follow-up care, including health promotion, prostate can
72                         The median length of follow-up care is 8.2 years.
73 ment (n = 3136), and 19% did not receive any follow-up care (n = 854).
74 hrough better education, and compliance with follow-up care needs to be improved to decrease the econ
75 ns (PCPs; n = 1,021) were surveyed regarding follow-up care of breast and colon cancer survivors.
76 nform COG-LTFU Guideline recommendations for follow-up care of female survivors of childhood cancer t
77                           Parameters for the follow-up care of patients with mild CHI after emergency
78 ed by the COG to provide recommendations for follow-up care of survivors at risk for long-term compli
79 implementation of new efforts to improve the follow-up care of survivors.
80 heart team-led indication, intervention, and follow-up care of TAVR patients.
81 sease, is essential for the proper long-term follow-up care of these patients.
82 s, few studies have addressed the quality of follow-up care or duration of treatment for depressed yo
83 ressed enthusiastic support for receipt of a follow-up care plan.
84  late effects and to standardize and enhance follow-up care provided to survivors of pediatric cancer
85                                     However, follow-up care recommendations developed at referral cen
86   The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Follow-up Care, Surveillance Protocol, and Secondary Pre
87                          Delivery of quality follow-up care to cancer survivors may require efforts t
88 uture COG-LTFU Guideline recommendations for follow-up care to improve health and quality of life for
89 o assess practices and barriers in providing follow-up care to living donors, we sent a questionnaire
90 te candidate, along with providing long-term follow-up care to maximize outcome.
91 ges for and barriers to provision of optimal follow-up care to patients and survivors living with can
92 ished in Rheumatology in the UK and provides follow-up care to people with inflammatory arthritis inc
93  likely not to have received any recommended follow-up care (UI group: 19.3% uninsured vs 9.2% insure
94 ire referral to an eye care professional for follow-up care using a cutoff of moderate diabetic retin
95 sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, follow-up care variables, and current HRQOL scores with
96           Although the delivery of long-term follow-up care varies substantially--particularly in ter
97   Patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care via a mobile app or at an in-person visit
98 ing ambulatory breast reconstruction can use follow-up care via a mobile app to avert in-person follo
99  a mobile app can be used to avert in-person follow-up care visits compared with conventional, in-per
100                  The distribution of time to follow-up care was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier e
101               The association of parity with follow-up care was increased for enrollees from areas of
102                                     However, follow-up care was low and substantial variation existed
103 ts were randomly assigned to receive routine follow-up care (well-baby care and care for chronic illn
104                      Differences in rates of follow-up care were evident between sites (site 2: OR, 1
105 d recommendations, appointments, or both for follow-up care with physicians as indicated.
106 g costs and copayments, as well as increased follow-up care with prescribing physicians for patients
107 logistic regression; and we examined whether follow-up care with providers of various specialties exp

WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。
 
Page Top